Talk:Albizia odoratissima
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." This is not "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images" as you so blithely put it - all of these images are pertinent to the subject, necessary to illustrate the species' various aspects, and in accordance with the MoS. I have not found anything in MOS:IMAGES or WP:LAYOUT to the contrary. Please do not mess with this particular layout because of your personal preferences. Paul venter (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have not mentioned WP:IG in discussing these pages. I specifically mentioned MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYOUT. I object to your layout of placing the images below the references. As I said elsewhere, it divorces the images from the text that accompanies them. As I already pointed out, MOS:IMAGES states, "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates..." Also, it pays to look around. How are other images being displayed - what's the normal approach? Placing them below the references section is clearly aberrant and jarring. It is not just a personal preference but a consensus view on how to display images. If you wish to change consensus to specifically allow presentation of images below references, do so at the talk pages of WP:LAYOUT or MOS:IMAGES. Rkitko (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again you are cherry-picking - The MoS is quite happy with placing images away from the relevant text viz. "If an article has many images—so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself—you can use a gallery." [1]. There is no consensus against placing images below the References in the form of a gallery. Paul venter (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Permitting the use of a gallery is not the same as allowing galleries to be shoved beneath the references. Look around at the best practices in all featured articles or good articles that utilize galleries. Do any of them place the gallery below the references? Have you seen any other editor placing galleries below references on stub- or start-class articles? The article pointed to as a good example of gallery use to compare and contrast fashion styles at WP:IG even doesn't do this. You'd have to wonder why that is. Perhaps a better question is why you'd want to display the images this way. What motivates your obstinance in the face of consensus and the prevailing common use? The intent of the phrase I quoted from the MOS was to keep images with the relevant text. Your choice to ignore that pushes the images away from that text and separates it in a strange format that only you seem to prefer. It is odd that you've chosen this to battle over, but acquiesced on other items, such as infoboxes and headings. Perhaps, again, it will take time and more editors to tell you the exact same thing I've said above to convince you of consensus. Again, if you're willing to fight to change it, the appropriate place is at the guideline talk pages, not on individual articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again you are cherry-picking - The MoS is quite happy with placing images away from the relevant text viz. "If an article has many images—so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself—you can use a gallery." [1]. There is no consensus against placing images below the References in the form of a gallery. Paul venter (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The galleries have not been "shoved" just anywhere - the position has been chosen after much deliberation. If the gallery is placed higher in the article it is deformed by your infobox. If you can point out a plant article with infobox where a gallery has attained a happy and informative position, it would be a good starting point for a layout discussion. "Obstinance"? - I presume you mean obstinacy? Do try to be polite. Stop wondering about why I think it's a good way of displaying images - the reason is simply one of presenting images in a way that the average reader can easily access and understand. As for being a format that only I prefer presumes that you or someone else has done a survey to establish editorial opinion on this issue - I think not. Finally, there is no guideline against what I am doing, so that I am not crusading for a change. If you feel otherwise then it is up to you to rally your supporters once more. Paul venter (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)